Infant Dedication - Cultural Substitute or Doctrinally Valid Practice?

[Neto]

As an introduction to the topic, please see the following threads and outside sources. (Not required for comment, but may be helpful to shape thoughts.)

....
While I agree with Max that various denominations sometimes have different names for the same sorts of things in terms of children coming to follow Christ, I think there are important differences. An infant or young child needs absolutely nothing in order to be safe with the Lord. They don't need baptism, dedication, or consecration. They are truly innocent, and under their parents' care, they should feel completely at peace about their soul's salvation, should they even think about the topic. They just need teaching, training, and a safe environment from their parents.
....

I did a search about when Infant Dedication was first instituted, and was surprised by what I found. (I have long disapproved of this practice, and assumed that it came into Mennonite circles from other church traditions.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_ded ... ren%20from

Child Dedication - History
Even though the Christian Church had not practiced child dedication for 15 centuries from its inception, in 1523, the Anabaptist movement, which taught that baptism is only for adults (believer's baptism) according to their understanding of the bible, first instituted child dedication practice for all children from believing households instead of just the first born sons.[9] The child dedication was subsequently adopted by many evangelical denominations (Baptists and Pentecostalism) adhering to the doctrine of the believers' Church.[10][6] Other evangelical denominations, such as many Methodist Churches, contain rites for both infant baptism and child dedication, leaving the option to families for what they wish for their sons and daughters; examples include the Free Methodist Church and Allegheny Wesleyan Methodist Connection.[11][12]

https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Ordinances

Though they are not listed in confessional or worship documents prior to the 1890s, oral tradition in some Mennonite circles has preserved the practices of infant dedication and anointing of the sick. The Gnadenfeld rite of the main Mennonite group in Russia ("Kirchen-Gemeinden") includes an infant dedication service clearly adapted from the ritual of infant baptism, no doubt because the Gnadenfeld congregation was originally Lutheran (Handbuch für Prediger, 64-65). Although other marks of the church have receded in use, infant dedication has become an almost universal practice among the main Mennonite conferences in North America. The greater attention to children as people in their own right has contributed to the desire of parents to have their children included in the care of God and of the church by means of a specific event. Attention has been given to make the difference between infant presentation and baptism clear (e.g., Minister's Manual, [Evangelical Mennonite Conference], 52). In some circles, however, infant dedication is increasingly seen as the inclusion of children in all aspects of the church's life. This has both stemmed from and led to less emphasis on conversion, catechism, and baptism as the necessary prerequisites for full participation in the life of the church.

For a fuller treatment of this subject, see:
https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Dedication_of_Infants

The third reference I posted above specifically says that it was usually done on the first Sunday when the mother attended with the new baby. It sounds to me that there was a bit more emphasis on the mother than is the case in what I've seen. I can see that as more acceptable, as it is a time of thanks, because the mother survived the childbirth, and the child as well.

Wife: the only baby dedication I ever heard of back in Oregon definitely seemed like a substitute for infant baptism, but the dad came from a Catholic background, so that’s why I assumed it happened. The mom‘s background was probably closer to BMA. I didn’t think it was bad, just basically people doing a devotional and praying for guidance for the parents and the parents agreeing to raise their child teaching them to follow God, but I can see how some people might be bothered by it. In some ways, it seems kind of similar to what people do during baby showers, other than both men and women being there, the baby already being born, and no ridiculous party games.

I don’t recall them ever having another shindig like that, so maybe it was an oldest child thing or maybe they just decided that with all the children they planned on having, it would get tiring and expensive. I don’t think it happened all that soon after the baby was born (definitely not the first week), but the mom probably had time to recover and feel like a human being again before they threw the get together.

All the churches we’ve gone to since then just mention during announcements that there’s a new church attendee whenever the mom brings a baby for the first time. Really confused my husband once, because he was sure that they were embarrassing some visitor.

As concerns Anabaptist practice, I would especially suggest reading the following (it’s not terribly long, and gives the Scripture references that were used to support the practice).

https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Dedication_of_Infants

I would emphasize that PRACTICE, even though it is “anabaptist practice”, and even EARLY practice (and on top of that, seemingly Dutch Mennist practice) - that just because it is a practice does not mean that it is valid doctrinally. (At least for me, as a Biblicist. I do not deny that the early anabaptists may have adopted practices that do not have valid Scriptural support.)

If I've missed including comments by others, please also link to them here. I would like to see a full discussion of this topic here. (If there is not interest on the part of others, then I'll be left to re-evaluate my current opinion on my own, or through discussion with other brothers and sisters here in my local congregation. Very briefly, I have long felt that it is a cultural substitute for infant baptism, to somewhat quiet the worries of those who had grown up under teaching that stated that an unbaptized child would be condemned to hell. I readily acknowledge that my training in cultural anthropology suggested that conclusion, at least to some extent.)

[QuietlyListening]

My husband and I went thru a dedication service for all 3 children- for us it was more about dedicating ourselves to raise our children in the Lord- it was in no way meant to be a baptism or replace it or mimic it and no water was involved. It was a time of prayer and doing this formally in front of our church fellowship.
I come from a UMC background and my husband from conservative Mennonite- and he was baptized as believer and I was baptized as an infant then rebaptized as a believer.
It was just something we felt was important to do in asking for prayer as we raised our children and a formal commitment to do so?
All 3 are believers and were baptized in teen years or later.

I think it depends on the motivation for it, what the thinking is behind it. Is it scriptural? Not sure but not everything that is done in the church is scriptural but doesn't need to be thrown out either.

Guess this is where we came from.

[ohio jones]

The GAMEO article references the accounts in the synoptic gospels of Jesus saying "let the little children come to me." But this practice is the parents bringing their infants, who are generally not walking yet. More often I've heard it linked with the dedication of Samuel, 1 Samuel 1 (without the slaughtering of the bulls), and the presentation of Jesus in the temple, Luke 2 (without the turtledoves and pigeons). The animals would make things more interesting.

[Soloist]

Wife: I probably wouldn’t be comfortable with our church making it a practice, but the one I went to didn’t seem to imply that it was a necessary practice to keep the baby out of hell, or that the baby was a Christian now. It seemed more like it was focused on the parents. Even though I wouldn’t do it, I think that it seems inconsistent to say those who do baby dedications are immoral if you’re still willing to celebrate Christmas, given the background of December 25.

Edit: There was no water or oil involved in the dedication I saw. Was that what someone had mentioned in the other thread when they said something about anointing with oil? That would seem pretty superstitious and take it to a different level.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

Even though the Christian Church had not practiced child dedication for 15 centuries from its inception, in 1523, the Anabaptist movement, which taught that baptism is only for adults (believer's baptism) according to their understanding of the bible, first instituted child dedication practice for all children from believing households instead of just the first born sons.

That's really interesting, since they didn't actually start the practice of believer's baptism in earnest until 1525.

[Neto]

Even though the Christian Church had not practiced child dedication for 15 centuries from its inception, in 1523, the Anabaptist movement, which taught that baptism is only for adults (believer's baptism) according to their understanding of the bible, first instituted child dedication practice for all children from believing households instead of just the first born sons.

That's really interesting, since they didn't actually start the practice of believer's baptism in earnest until 1525.

I didn't catch that detail. I tend to skim over the parts that only pertain to the Swiss setting, because I'm from the Dutch movement, not Swiss or German. (Some Dutch Mennonite scholars of the early to mid 1800's wrote that Dutch "baptism-mindedness" did not come from Swiss influence so much as from the Waldensian brotherhood. It doesn't really matter, but my interests just lie more so in my own heritage. Perhaps I am wrong to do that.)

[ohio jones]

Even though the Christian Church had not practiced child dedication for 15 centuries from its inception, in 1523, the Anabaptist movement, which taught that baptism is only for adults (believer's baptism) according to their understanding of the bible, first instituted child dedication practice for all children from believing households instead of just the first born sons.

That's really interesting, since they didn't actually start the practice of believer's baptism in earnest until 1525.

The citation Wikipedia gives for that statement is of course not in the pages available in Amazon's preview. But if one accepts the polygenesis theory of Anabaptist origins it is no great concern that some things were happening prior to the Zürich baptisms. In addition to Zwingli, Müntzer, Karlstadt, Erasmus, and others gave voice to ideas that eventuated in the Anabaptist movement, even though they were not part of it.

The GAMEO article references a letter from Balthasar Hubmaier to Oecolampadius dated 16 January 1525* which indicates he had suspended infant baptism in favor of dedication, though he had probably not yet rebaptized anyone.

* Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism, ed./trans. H. Wayne Pipkin and John Yoder (Walden, NY: Plough, 2019), p. 72, also of course excluded from Amazon preview

[MaxPC]

As concerns Anabaptist practice, I would especially suggest reading the following (it’s not terribly long, and gives the Scripture references that were used to support the practice).

https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Dedication_of_Infants

I would emphasize that PRACTICE, even though it is “anabaptist practice”, and even EARLY practice (and on top of that, seemingly Dutch Mennist practice) - that just because it is a practice does not mean that it is valid doctrinally. (At least for me, as a Biblicist. I do not deny that the early anabaptists may have adopted practices that do not have valid Scriptural support.)

If I've missed including comments by others, please also link to them here. I would like to see a full discussion of this topic here. (If there is not interest on the part of others, then I'll be left to re-evaluate my current opinion on my own, or through discussion with other brothers and sisters here in my local congregation. Very briefly, I have long felt that it is a cultural substitute for infant baptism, to somewhat quiet the worries of those who had grown up under teaching that stated that an unbaptized child would be condemned to hell. I readily acknowledge that my training in cultural anthropology suggested that conclusion, at least to some extent.)

Quite interesting, Neto. This is not a widely known outside of Anabaptist circles, I daresay.